- This topic has 18,301 replies, 269 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 5 months ago by
Keith.
- AuthorPosts
- November 9, 2007 at 2:04 am#70997
Anonymous
GuestCouldn't God have given himself a name?
November 9, 2007 at 2:11 am#71001Morningstar
ParticipantQuote (BrutusBox @ Nov. 09 2007,13:04) Couldn't God have given himself a name?
Yes! And he did! Several. But the most prominent is YHVH correct.I tried to search on google a quick quote on this from the early church. I will have to wait until I get home to look it up. I am actually at work right now.
November 9, 2007 at 2:17 am#71002Anonymous
GuestQuote (Morningstar @ Nov. 09 2007,13:11) Quote (BrutusBox @ Nov. 09 2007,13:04) Couldn't God have given himself a name?
Yes! And he did! Several. But the most prominent is YHVH correct.I tried to search on google a quick quote on this from the early church. I will have to wait until I get home to look it up. I am actually at work right now.

i am at work to. but definitely get back with that info. i would appreciate it. but i still come to the question, isn't YHWH the Father's actual name and the rest just titles.November 9, 2007 at 2:20 am#71003Anonymous
Guestif my understanding is correct, judaism has always taught that God's name is Yahweh and the rest are just titles. Hence all the YHWH stuff (i.e.”thou shall not take my NAME in vain”).
November 9, 2007 at 2:22 am#71004Morningstar
ParticipantQuote (BrutusBox @ Nov. 09 2007,13:17) Quote (Morningstar @ Nov. 09 2007,13:11) Quote (BrutusBox @ Nov. 09 2007,13:04) Couldn't God have given himself a name?
Yes! And he did! Several. But the most prominent is YHVH correct.I tried to search on google a quick quote on this from the early church. I will have to wait until I get home to look it up. I am actually at work right now.

i am at work to. but definitely get back with that info. i would appreciate it. but i still come to the question, isn't YHWH the Father's actual name and the rest just titles.
I don't know, ultimately. The Father may have liked it and kept it making it official.But, I tend to make me agree with the early church Fathers. I am not dogmatic about this at all.
Father and Son both share the name thats all I am pretty firm on.
I don't know this for sure, but I have heard and even seen posted on this site that the Jews still argue to this day what the “true” name of God is.
El
Eloah
El Elyon
YHVHetc…
November 9, 2007 at 2:34 am#71006
GeneBalthropParticipantMorningStar…….> the word (incarnation) IS NOT IN THE BIBLE , iTS WHAT PREEXISTENEST and TRINITARIANEST USE to try to explain their belief in Jesus as a preexistent being. But no where in the bible does it say Jesus preexisted as a being of any shape or form, until He was born on earth as the First begotten Son. Peter said He was forordained .But was Manifested (brought forth) in our time. Jesus' only preexistence was in the plan of God. And at the right to time God brought Him forth. We find No activity of Jesus recorded in either old or new testement. It shows activity of the Christos or Holy Spirit but not Jesus the man at all.
IMO>…….gene
November 9, 2007 at 2:39 am#71007Morningstar
ParticipantQuote (Gene Balthrop @ Nov. 09 2007,13:34) MorningStar…….> the word (incarnation) IS NOT IN THE BIBLE , iTS WHAT PREEXISTENEST and TRINITARIANEST USE to try to explain their belief in Jesus as a preexistent being. But no where in the bible does it say Jesus preexisted as a being of any shape or form, until He was born on earth as the First begotten Son. Peter said He was forordained .But was Manifested (brought forth) in our time. Jesus' only preexistence was in the plan of God. And at the right to time God brought Him forth. We find No activity of Jesus recorded in either old or new testement. It shows activity of the Christos or Holy Spirit but not Jesus the man at all. IMO>…….gene
I understand.But what you don't see. I literally see everywhere in scriptures, history, higher criticism, the apocryphal books removed from the bible some only about 150 years ago.
Jesus was truly the Firstborn and arche (beginning) of creation.
Jesus truly did represent the Father in the Old Testament.
No man has ever seen God! No man has ever heard God!
It was the son who revealed him!!!!
November 9, 2007 at 2:45 am#71010
GeneBalthropParticipantMorningStar…..> This is why Towshab and other Jew's become so offended, its because “CHRISTIANS” try to equate and attribute creative powers to Jesus when in fact Jesus Never said He ever created anything. There is only One God who alone and By Himself created all things. Who is to be in all and through all. No One else Just Him alone. “Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is One Lord. Remember thats what Jesus quoted and Said and Preached One God and No other.
IMO…….>gene
November 9, 2007 at 2:57 am#71011
GeneBalthropParticipantMorningStar…..> heres somthing for though, God told Moses to tell the Israelites that I AM What I Am Has sent Him. Think about this If God was in all things and created all things then He could very easly say, I Am What I Am, He just may be in everything He creates. Just an interesting throught.
peace to you and yours……>gene
November 9, 2007 at 2:58 am#71012Anonymous
Guesthey morningstar, was hoping to get a response to my last couple of posts, before i had to go, but i will just have to check in tomorrow but i hope to continue our conversation, i think you are a really interesting cat, obviously intelligent and well read, talk to you soon.
November 9, 2007 at 3:02 am#71014Anonymous
GuestQuote (Gene Balthrop @ Nov. 09 2007,13:34) MorningStar…….> the word (incarnation) IS NOT IN THE BIBLE , iTS WHAT PREEXISTENEST and TRINITARIANEST USE to try to explain their belief in Jesus as a preexistent being. But no where in the bible does it say Jesus preexisted as a being of any shape or form, until He was born on earth as the First begotten Son. Peter said He was forordained .But was Manifested (brought forth) in our time. Jesus' only preexistence was in the plan of God. And at the right to time God brought Him forth. We find No activity of Jesus recorded in either old or new testement. It shows activity of the Christos or Holy Spirit but not Jesus the man at all. IMO>…….gene
check out Isa48:12-16November 9, 2007 at 3:07 am#71015Anonymous
GuestQuote (Morningstar @ Nov. 09 2007,13:22) Quote (BrutusBox @ Nov. 09 2007,13:17) Quote (Morningstar @ Nov. 09 2007,13:11) Quote (BrutusBox @ Nov. 09 2007,13:04) Couldn't God have given himself a name?
Yes! And he did! Several. But the most prominent is YHVH correct.I tried to search on google a quick quote on this from the early church. I will have to wait until I get home to look it up. I am actually at work right now.

i am at work to. but definitely get back with that info. i would appreciate it. but i still come to the question, isn't YHWH the Father's actual name and the rest just titles.
I don't know, ultimately. The Father may have liked it and kept it making it official.But, I tend to make me agree with the early church Fathers. I am not dogmatic about this at all.
Father and Son both share the name thats all I am pretty firm on.
I don't know this for sure, but I have heard and even seen posted on this site that the Jews still argue to this day what the “true” name of God is.
El
Eloah
El Elyon
YHVHetc…
the reason Jews write the name Yahweh as YHWH is because they want to live above reproach concerning the comandment “shall not take the Lord your God's NAME in vain.”
that among many other things i have read in Jewish writing has lead me to believe that Yahweh is God's name and not merely a title.November 9, 2007 at 3:10 am#71016Anonymous
Guestalso if Jews argue that God's name might be Eloah, why is it only used approximately 250 times in the Old Testament, compared to the approximate 2500 times that the plural form of the word(Elohim) is used.
November 9, 2007 at 3:11 am#71017Anonymous
Guestanyways, morningstar i really have to go, i will check back in tomorrow, i hope that you will check back also, like i said i think you are an interesting dude.
November 9, 2007 at 3:28 am#71018
GeneBalthropParticipantBrutusBox…….> Dont neglect to start with Isa 48:1-22, Verse 11 > For My own sake, for My own sake, I will do it. For How shall MY Name be profaned? And I will Not give MY Glory to another.
God was speaking to and about Israel.
IMO…….>gene
November 9, 2007 at 3:35 am#71019Morningstar
ParticipantQuote (Gene Balthrop @ Nov. 09 2007,14:28) BrutusBox…….> Dont neglect to start with Isa 48:1-22, Verse 11 > For My own sake, for My own sake, I will do it. For How shall MY Name be profaned? And I will Not give MY Glory to another. God was speaking to and about Israel.
IMO…….>gene
John 1721that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23I in them and you in me.
The Father will not let anything be done with his Glory that he does not approve.
Nobody can take his glory.
But Praise be to him! He will share his Glory with those he loves.
November 9, 2007 at 3:35 am#71020
ProclaimerParticipantDo you hold to the Oneness doctrine?
November 9, 2007 at 3:36 am#71021Morningstar
ParticipantQuote (Guest @ Nov. 09 2007,14:11) anyways, morningstar i really have to go, i will check back in tomorrow, i hope that you will check back also, like i said i think you are an interesting dude.
Ill be around
November 9, 2007 at 3:45 am#71028
ProclaimerParticipantHey BrutusBox.
I think you need to reregister.
Your registration most likely resembled a spammer and was deleted.
I will make sure that you get through this time.
November 9, 2007 at 6:32 am#71035Towshab
ParticipantNum 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
- AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

